2016 OMS MISO Survey ResultsFurthering our joint commitment to regional resource assessment and

transparency in the MISO region, OMS and MISO are pleased to announce the results of the 2016 OMS MISO Survey

June 2016

1

MISO Region is projected to have adequate resources to meet its Planning Reserve Requirement for 2017; additional action will be needed to ensure sufficient resources are available going forward

For 2017,• The region has 2.7 GW (2.2%) in excess of the projected resource requirement• Recent publicly announced retirements decrease this excess to 0.9 GW (0.7%)• Several zones are below their resource requirement and will rely on imports• Demand has shrunk due to reduced forecasts and point load reductions• Supply has declined due to plant retirements in excess of new resource additions

Beyond 2017,• Continued resource adequacy will depend on uncommitted resources or

resources with potential retirements• Continued commitment to firming up planned generation interconnections

through the MISO process will also be required• This outlook depends heavily on load projections; current forecasts of modest

load growth are not in line with recent history of flat year-to-year loads

OMS – MISO Survey Executive Summary

2

Understanding Resource Adequacy Requirements

• Load serving entities within each zone must have sufficient committed resources to meet load and required reserves

• Uncommitted resources may be used by load serving entities with resource shortages to meet reserve requirements

3

• High Certainty Resources are committed to serving MISO load– Resources within the rate base of MISO utilities– New generators with signed interconnection agreements– External resources with firm contracts to MISO load

• Low Certainty Resources may be available to serve MISO load but do not have any firm commitments to do so– Most of these resources are potential retirements or suspensions

• Unavailable resources are not included in the survey totals– Resources with firm commitments to non-MISO load– Units with finalized retirements or suspensions– Potential new generators without a signed Generator Interconnection

Agreement

Understanding Resource Availability

4

1.8

0.9

In 2017, modest excess capacity is projected to address zonal deficits

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9

Projected Capacity against Reserve Requirement* (ICAP GW)

Lower MIMN, MT, ND, SD, West WI

East WI and

Upper MI

IA IL INand KY

AR LA and TX

2.7 (17.4%)

2017 Outlook, ICAP GW (% Reserves)

1.1 0.9 to 1.0

0.2

‐0.8

0.6 0.7 to 0.8

0.9 to 1.5

Low Certainty Resource Impact on Surplus / DeficitSurplus / Deficit with High      Certainty Resources 

Shading represents total low certainty resources when there is a deficit of high 

certainty resources

5MO

0.5

10MS

‐0.3

1.2

(15.9%)

*Positions include reported inter‐zonal transfersPublicly announced potential retirements as of June 1, 2016 were included as low certainty resourcesExports from Zone 1 were limited by the zone’s Capacity Export Limit to 0.6 GWExports from Zone 8, 9, and 10 were limited by the Subregional Power Balance Constraint to 0.98 GW  

‐1.2

One

 day in te

nPR

M (1

5.2%

)

5

For 2017, all projected capacity is not available to serve load outside of its zone due to transfer limitations

0.9 GW

‐1.2 GW

0.2 GW

0.6 GW

‐0.8 GW

‐0.3 GW0.6 GW

0.98 GW

2017 High Certainty Resources Available to 

Support Other Zones (ICAP)

Transfer Limited Capacity

Projected surplus

Projected deficit

6

2.6

1.2

1.50.8 0.7

2.5

0.9

The 2017 results show the impacts of potential or actual generation retirements, as well as changes in load

ForecastedRegional Surplus: 2015 OMS‐MISO 

Survey

Point Load Reductions

Decrease inHigh Certainty Resources (Confirmed and potential retirements)

ForecastedRegional Surplus: 

2016 OMS‐MISO Survey

2017 OutlookComparison of High Certainty Resources

In GW (ICAP)

Increase in Reserve 

Requirement (Average Forced Outage Rate Increase)

Forecasted Load 

Reductions

IncreaseIn New 

Resources

1.8

4.3

7

0.9

1.8

2.6 3.0

3.03.1

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

1 da

y in 10 PR

M (1

5.2%

)

Action is required in the near term to ensure sufficient resources in future years

Projected Capacity Position in ICAP GW (% Reserves)

2.7 (17.4%)2.2 (16.9%)

‐0.5 (14.8%)

‐1.9 (13.8%)

‐2.6 (13.2%)

• Regional outlook includes projected constraints on capacity, including Capacity Export Limits and the Subregional Power Balancing Constraint

• Resources with publicly announced potential retirements or suspensions as of June 1, 2016 were counted as low certainty.   

• These figures will change as future capacity plans are solidified by load serving entities and state commissions.  

(15.9%)

‐0.4 (14.9%)

2.5 (17.1%)

1.1 (16.1%)

0.5(15.5%)

Low Certainty Resource Impact on Surplus / DeficitSurplus / Deficit with High      Certainty Resources 

Shading represents total low certainty resources when there is a deficit of high 

certainty resources

8

2.6

(13.2 %)

0.5

2021 Capacity Projections

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9

Projected Capacity against Reserve Requirement* (ICAP GW)

Lower MIMN, MT, ND, SD, West WI

East WI and

Upper MI

IA IL INand KY

AR LA and TX

(15.5 %)

2021 Outlook, ICAP GW (% Reserves)

0.4 0.30.0

‐1.3‐0.8 to ‐0.3

0.8 to 0.90.5 to 1.4

5MO

0.2

10MS

‐0.6

0.9

*Positions include reported inter‐zonal transfersPublicly announced potential retirements as of June 1, 2016 were included as low certainty resourcesExports from Zone 8, 9, and 10 were limited by the Subregional Power Balance Constraint to 1.5 GW

‐0.5

‐1.7

One

 day in te

n PR

M (1

5.2%

)

Low Certainty Resource Impact on Surplus / DeficitSurplus / Deficit with High      Certainty Resources 

Shading represents total low certainty resources when there is a deficit of high 

certainty resources

9

Not yet submitted (not included in available capacity)

Preliminary studies (not included in available capacity)

Final studies (not included in available capacity)

Signed agreements (included in available capacity)

Continued commitment to firming up planned generation interconnections through the MISO process will be required

* Wind and solar resources are represented at their expected capacity credit

Potential Generation Additions, in GW*

Regional High Certainty Balance0.9

‐0.4 ‐0.5

‐1.9

‐2.62017 2018 2019 2020 2021

LRZ 3

LRZ 4

LRZ 5

LRZ 6

LRZ 7

LRZ 8

LRZ 9

LRZ 10

0.4 0.3

‐0.5‐0.8

0.8 0.5

‐1.7

‐0.6

0.9

‐1.3

2021 Capacity against Reserve Requirement

LRZ1

LRZ 2

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

10

MISO Region is projected to have adequate resources to meet its Planning Reserve Requirement for 2017; additional action will be needed to ensure sufficient resources are available going forward

For 2017,• The region has 2.7 GW (2.2%) in excess of the projected resource requirement• Recent publicly announced retirements decrease this excess to 0.9 GW (0.7%)• Several zones are below their resource requirement and will rely on imports• Demand has shrunk due to reduced forecasts and point load reductions• Supply has declined due to plant retirements in excess of new resource additions

Beyond 2017,• Continued resource adequacy will depend on uncommitted resources or

resources with potential retirements• Continued commitment to firming up planned generation interconnections

through the MISO queue process will also be required• This outlook depends heavily on load projections; current forecasts of modest

load growth are not in line with recent history of flat year-to-year loads

OMS – MISO Survey Executive Summary

11

Appendix

12

• Documentation and survey format– Survey documentation created and reviewed with stakeholders– Improvements made to format of the survey requests and the resulting

balance sheet to reduce the burden on respondents• Data collection

– Surveys sent to Load Serving Entities and Independent Power Producers

– Load forecasts were aligned with the load submissions used in the most recent Planning Resource Auction

• Post-Processing– Separation of Zone 4 and Zone 5 results– Aligned survey results with publically announced potential suspensions

and retirements

Survey Improvements